- From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 09:33:45 +0100
- To: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Ashok Malhotra wrote: > You cannot subtract one time from another to get a duration. > You must use dateTime. Sure, that's not exactly what I meant... Where I think that the order relation defined by W3C XML Schema is broken is that I can't express (for instance) the constraint that a time needs to be between 22:00:00 and 06:00:00 next day (except with complex contorsions on timezones). Thanks, Eric > > All the best, Ashok > =========================================================== > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@dyomedea.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 6:32 AM > To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > Subject: xs:time order doesn't meet common sense > > When defining a time format with hours between 0 and 24, ISO 8601 has > not defined any order relation on these values... and this is leading to > weird consequences! > > Let's take the example of a plane with a daily summer time schedule > leaving San Francisco at 16:30:00-07:00 to arrive in Paris at > 10:45:00+02:00 the next day. > > The definition of the order between those two times given by W3C XML > Schema would lead us to the conclusion that this plane arrives before > leaving. > > This problem might be solved if values greater than 24 were accepted for > the hour (the plane would then arrive at 34:45:00+02:00, ie 25:45:00-07:00). > > What is especially inconsitent is that the actual value space of xs:time > is already exceeding the 24 hours to cover the 52 hours from 00:00:00+14 > to 24:00:00-14! > > This means that by carefully selecting the timezones one might be able > to get planes which arrive after leaving. > > To go back to our example, 16:30:00-07:00 is also 01:30:00+02:00 (the > next day) and the plane is flying from 01:30:00+02:00 to 10:45:00+02:00... > > This cannot be extended to be the general case (the flight may have been > longer) and relaxing the constraint on the range of the hours part would > only generalize something which is already allowed... > > I think that the issue is coming from the definition of the order > relation for xs:time: > > "The order relation on time values is the Order relation on dateTime > (§3.2.7.3) using an arbitrary date. " > > This doesn't really make sense since xs:time is a recurring point in > time, not a duration. The consequence is that by changing the timezone > of the arbitrary date, you can change the result of the comparison. > > Eric (jetlagged after this exercise) > -- Rendez-vous à Paris pour le Forum XML. http://www.technoforum.fr/Pages/forumXML01/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 28 October 2001 03:33:23 UTC